To anyone that CCW.....this is a MUST READ!!!!!!

This is a discussion on To anyone that CCW.....this is a MUST READ!!!!!! within the Carry & Defensive Scenarios forums, part of the Defensive Carry Discussions category; I'm really surprised at how many people are saying they would have just ran away. As I read the story he was putting himself between ...

I'm really surprised at how many people are saying they would have just ran away. As I read the story he was putting himself between the attackers and his wife to defend her. Another thing that came to mind was that he could have just pulled the gun out and let them see. They may have changed their minds about attacking in the first place. Now, I'll beat you to it......Yes, he may have been charged with brandishing. I agree. But would you rather be on trial for brandishing or have all of the charges he had WITH a civil suit on top of that. I'll take brandishing. I was under the impression that in Arizona the law stated that quote: No duty to retreat before using force to prevent certain serious offenses, including aggravated assault. Again, this applies anywhere, any place a person has a legal right to be, in the language of the law...end quote

Aggravated assault:A person is guilty of aggravated assault if he or she attempts to cause serious bodily injury to another or causes such injury purposely, knowingly, or recklessly under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life; or attempts to cause or purposely or knowingly causes bodily injury to another with a deadly weapon. In all jurisdictions statutes punish such aggravated assaults as assault with intent to murder (or rob or kill or rape) and assault with a dangerous (or deadly) weapon more severely than "simple" assaults.

I'm really surprised at how many people are saying they would have just ran away. As I read the story he was putting himself between the attackers and his wife to defend her. Another thing that came to mind was that he could have just pulled the gun out and let them see. They may have changed their minds about attacking in the first place. Now, I'll beat you to it......Yes, he may have been charged with brandishing. I agree. But would you rather be on trial for brandishing or have all of the charges he had WITH a civil suit on top of that. I'll take brandishing. I was under the impression that in Arizona the law stated that quote: No duty to retreat before using force to prevent certain serious offenses, including aggravated assault. Again, this applies anywhere, any place a person has a legal right to be, in the language of the law...end quote

Aggravated assault:A person is guilty of aggravated assault if he or she attempts to cause serious bodily injury to another or causes such injury purposely, knowingly, or recklessly under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life; or attempts to cause or purposely or knowingly causes bodily injury to another with a deadly weapon. In all jurisdictions statutes punish such aggravated assaults as assault with intent to murder (or rob or kill or rape) and assault with a dangerous (or deadly) weapon more severely than "simple" assaults.

Yep...and the victim was having his clock cleaned by all three...its called disparity of force...and when the truth came out, he was right. Otherwise, he'd either be dead or handicapped--yeah, I'm sure that would be a better outcome.... He would have been better off with a couple of COM shots and head shots from the retention position...with the bodies in his front yard. That way the police get one story...

Amen that was my thoughts center of mass one story... the right one.... there would be no way I'd be running to get a first aid kit after I just shot you because you attacked me. And My magazine would have been a little more empty than his...

The prosecutor's choice of jurists who he thought would be helpful in gaining a conviction tells the whole story.
It's powerful evidence for the assertion that trials are often not about justice, but about winning or losing.
Very happy with the outcome.

I just googled his site, and his class schedule shows 2009. Nothing for 2010 or 2011. Also, I remember reading (I could be wrong, here) that he doesn't teach his own classes anymore. He has other instructors to do that.

Would be nice, though, to have all the big guns come riding to your rescue. Not gonna happen for me.

I'm really surprised at how many people are saying they would have just ran away. As I read the story he was putting himself between the attackers and his wife to defend her. Another thing that came to mind was that he could have just pulled the gun out and let them see. They may have changed their minds about attacking in the first place. Now, I'll beat you to it......Yes, he may have been charged with brandishing. I agree. But would you rather be on trial for brandishing or have all of the charges he had WITH a civil suit on top of that. I'll take brandishing. I was under the impression that in Arizona the law stated that quote: No duty to retreat before using force to prevent certain serious offenses, including aggravated assault. Again, this applies anywhere, any place a person has a legal right to be, in the language of the law...end quote

Aggravated assault:A person is guilty of aggravated assault if he or she attempts to cause serious bodily injury to another or causes such injury purposely, knowingly, or recklessly under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life; or attempts to cause or purposely or knowingly causes bodily injury to another with a deadly weapon. In all jurisdictions statutes punish such aggravated assaults as assault with intent to murder (or rob or kill or rape) and assault with a dangerous (or deadly) weapon more severely than "simple" assaults.

There is a newer self-defense justification in Arizona as of 9/30/2009 that permits the "defensive display" of a firearm "when and to the extent a reasonable person would believe that physical force is immediately necessary to protect himself against the use or attempted use of unlawful physical force or deadly physical force" ARS 13-421.

"Defensive Display" means (1) verbally informing an aggressor that one is armed; (2) exposing or displaying a firearm in a manner that a reasonable person would understand is meant to protect against the aggressor's use or attempted use of unlawful physical force or deadly physical force; or (3) placing one's hand on a firearm that is contained in a pocket, purse or other means of containment or transport. One may not use the defensive display justification if he/she provoked the fight or altercation or if he/she is committing a serious offense or violent crime as defined by other statutes.

The Defensive Display justification is a much more restrictive version of the statutory right of a police officer to threaten deadly physical force in response to any potential threat of physical force. ARS 13-410(D).

Very thought-provoking article and a reminder of how horribly wrong many things can quickly become.

The Armed Citizens Legal Defense Network, llc is in dire need of a graphic designer. I refused to read the article based on how much of a headache I got just from looking at the first page and trying to read 1 paragraph. I am not going to go super critical on them, but I am sure its a great read judging by the replies - but if they want to be taken seriously, they need to learn some design sense and not come off looking like their article and banners were made by a 6th grader in a word processing class.

I feel this is a sad story of how far society has come (or not - depending on your point of view), in being able to distinguish right from wrong, and using plain common sense. This Hickey and his family went through a most trying time, and he did what he felt was right in the moment, and stayed within the law. Why does the responsible party and victim in these circumstances need to provide the burden? Did the aggressors have to compensate Hickey for lost wages, charactor defamation, and undue mental anguish? and the time he spent in jail? Was there any recourse or accountability given to the neighbors? the aggressors? This is an example of how the people who were not in compliance with the law were able to use the law in an attempt to gain (in the end, did obtain) financial advantage, and essentially escape being prosecuted themselves by lying. This story makes me feel ill to know that if I were to legitimately defend myself or family in any fashion, that I might still be found at fault.

It is very unnerving that the "antis" in the prosecutors office wound up being almost as dangerous, if not more so, to this man than the 3-1 attack that precipitated the trial.

As far as not drawing, I see him as having no other choice in the situation. However, If he had been ready with a less than lethal alternative, ie. pepper spray, or a stungun, things might have ended quite differently, though, I'm not sure of the laws in Arizona relating to these weapons. I do know that they are legal here in Florida and I am now more interested in aquiring them as an alternative to deadly force.

I don't want to shoot anyone, as I'm sure that most here agree with, but I'm also not affraid to defend myself and my family. As with any job, it would be easier, and safer, with all the right tools onhand... just something to think about.

So, we were at the Gun Show last weekend and finally, I picked up a stun gun for the wife, 1.8million volts (I'm sure that is exaggerated, but I wouldn't want to get hit by a fraction of that, so...) and we each got a Pen dispensed, OC spray/foam to carry daily. Now, I have the piece of mind that not only is my wife carrying, but she has options, she doesn't have to kill BG and leave us when the prosecutor sees a chance to make a name for himself and do all he can to see that she spends life behind bars for defending herself. Thanks to this story, I have taken that next step and I want to thank the OP, and I want to thank the Victim, if not for what he has bravely traversed, we would all be less knowlegable.

"You will not rise to the occasion and you will not default to your level of training. You WILL ONLY default to the level of training you have mastered."
-Ruger P345; LCP
-Mossberg 590A1; Model 42
-Phoenix Arms Raven

If you attend a dojo and practice regularly, you will discover that a man's weight and size advantage are usually enough to deal with female opponents. A woman who trains on a constant basis can overcome those deficits, but it takes a lot of work.

There is no need for a man to exert violence toward a woman. She can be easily scooped and set down on the ground without much trouble. The endgame analysis of this story is that the man was under-trained.

As bad as it sounds, if you ever have to use your firearm, make sure you kill the perp(s). We all hope we never have to use our firearms in a defensive situation, but it just makes things easier for the armed citizen if the attacker is in the morgue. No lying perps who change their story. You'd still have to defend your side of the story in court (if it makes it there), but the only claim will be from you, everything else will be speculation from lawyers.

The thing is, you never know how things are going to play out once the smoke from the barrel of you gun clears.

Anyone can find themselves right in the middle of this kind of nightmare real life scenario after the smoke clears.

Two things I read from Ayoob which sticks with me from reading well over 25 years ago.

1) Sometimes it may be worth taking an ass kicking instead of shooting an unarmed person, even if you feel you are right to do so.

2) If I have to go to prison for several decades for a bad shoot, I'd just as soon be killed in the initial gunfight.

Those two statements weigh heavy on my mind, and urges me to be sure that there is no room for any questions if I'm ever involved in a shooting incident.

I've spent countless hours over the last thirty years studying case law, shooting incidents, lethal force laws, disparity of force, looking for details and traps so that I can know in my mind during the moment of truth that I'm clear to drop the hammer. I don't want to be giving up precious seconds, or fractions of seconds debating in my mind in the middle of an incident whether or not I'm clean to shoot.

Many incidents it's pretty clear cut and you know you are good to go. But so many shooting incidents end up falling into a nasty, murky gray area in which by the time you step back and look in the aftermath, things don't look so clear cut anymore.

Every prison has a certain population of pretty decent people doing hard time for manslaughter or murder because they believed they were on solid ground when they pulled the trigger. And many of those really were on solid ground and righteous to shoot but things just didn't work out well for them in the aftermath of the incident for any number of reasons.

Decent and otherwise law abiding citizens tend to not do so well in prison. It's like being thrown to the sharks, and some don't survive.

Take an ordinary family guy, maybe an insurance salesman or a teacher who has a wife and 3 or 4 kids under age 8 and throw them in prison for 15 years for murder when he's truly a decent guy trying to do the right thing defending himself or family and it's not going to be good for that person. More than a handful end up getting killed or crippled in prison before they have a chance to serve out their sentence.

That's no life for me. I think I'd just rather be killed in the initial encounter than try to live through 15 years in prison. Yeah, I might rethink that statement if it ever came down to it, but make no mistake, once your gun barks... It's a crap shoot as to how it plays out.